Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 692 (MP)

Sanman Singh v. Munni Bai

2014-06-20

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
Judgment: Sujoy Paul, J. 1. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged this order annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3 in this petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India. 3. In an application filed for mutation by respondent No. 1, notices were issued to the other side. The case of the petitioner is that notices were not served on the petitioner and it is served on Shri Durga Prasad. Even the date of service on Shri Durga Prasad is 05.09.2006. On the very same date i.e. 05.09.2006, the Court below proceeded ex parte against the petitioner which is bad in law. The petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged this order before the Additional Collector in Revision No. 13/2006-07 and then before the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 746/PBR/2012. 4. Shri Singh submits that the Court below has erred in proceeding ex parte against the petitioner without ensuring lawful service of notice. In addition, it is submitted that even assuming that notices were served on 05.09.2006, the Tehsildar was not justified in proceeding ex parte on the same date. Litigant cannot appear before the authority on the same day on which notices were served. 5. The prayer is opposed by Shri Abhishek Bhadoriya on the ground that Annexure P-3 shows that the Tehsildar initially proceeded ex parte, but later on upon appearance of Shri Durga Prasad, parties were permitted to file their written statements which impliedly means that ex-parte order was set aside. 6. I have heard the parties and perused the record. 7. The notice, annexure P-6 shows that it was served on Shri Durga Prasad on 05.09.2006. On the very same date, the Court below proceeded ex parte against the present petitioner. Later portion of the order Annexure P-3 only shows that Durga Prasad appeared through his counsel and copy of the application was directed to be given to him and parties appeared on that day were directed to file reply. 8. I am unable to hold that in later portion, the Court below has set aside the order of ex parte against present petitioner expressly or impliedly. The Revisional Courts by Annexure P-1 and P-2 upheld the order Annexure P-3 by treating the said order as an ex parte order. 8. I am unable to hold that in later portion, the Court below has set aside the order of ex parte against present petitioner expressly or impliedly. The Revisional Courts by Annexure P-1 and P-2 upheld the order Annexure P-3 by treating the said order as an ex parte order. The principles of natural justice and fair play in action are violated because the petitioner did not get sufficient opportunity to defend himself. 9. Considering the aforesaid, Annexure P-3 to the extent it relates to petitioner, is set aside. 10. Resultantly, Annexure P-1 and P-2 are also set aside and the petitioner is directed to file written statement (if proceedings are still pending) before the next date of hearing before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar must consider the same in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.